I know this topic's been beat to death

[peter dragon]

but in leiu of a decent game to watch this weekend.. (other than regional action)
if D1 had a playoffs, what would the incentive be of playing good OOC games? if they did a 8 team play off teams like USC and OSU and TX and OK, would only worry about the conference champ, to get their automatic bid and play nothing decent ooc.
Say:
B12 - Champ
SEC - Champ
B10 - Champ (or however they decided it)
PAC - Champ
BE - Champ
ACC - Champ
and say 2 at large.. what would the reasoning be for a team to play say ND other than to try to make it in as an at large. Only the mid-majors would want to play them, when you could bypass them and just try to get ranked high enough by the pollsters and using your conference strengh to make it..
Teams like FLA, GA, MICH, OHIO STATE, LSU, USC, WISC, OK, TX, NEB, could all have a decent run not win the conference and still be ranked high enough to take an atlarge without having to schedule a decent OOC game..

I dont know its 3:20 am and im at work and bored. LOL

[MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan]

Well, first things first, the scenario you described would actually be worse than the current system. It's bad enough that, under the current system, a 7-win team can play in a BCS bowl by virtue of pulling off one big upset in their CCG, but giving that team a legitimate shot at a national title would be an absolute travesty. CCGs are already one of the dumbest things to happen to CFB, so to give them even greater significance would be horrifying.

To answer your original question, there really wouldn't be any incentive to play tough OOC games, outside of simply wanting to prove yourself as one of the best teams in the country. But that's really all the incentive there is now, too. As long as the BCS continues to reward teams who play 8 home games every year, schedule FCS opponents on a regular basis and almost never travel outside of their geographic region, there's no reason to play those games now.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

if D1 had a playoffs, what would the incentive be of playing good OOC games?

What incentive does USC have to play teams like Auburn and Ohio St? They don't need any. They choose to. Replace Ohio St with a WAC slappy and USC is still going to the title game if they win out.

Even still, with a playoff, I don't think there would be much more or much less incentive either way. In any event, I question that a playoff would have a drastic impact on many teams' OOC scheduling philosophies. Many teams schedule the way they do for financial reasons, i.e., big payouts, and honoring long-standing rivalries with other schools. Teams have been scheduling the same way for YEARS. I think with a playoff, very little would change in the way of scheduling practices. You wonder why right now there are so many teams that don't take advantage of OOC scheduling (whether it be a tough OOC or a weak OOC -- depending on the team and how it benefits them). So why all the sudden would they "take advantage" with a playoff in place?

[Shoalzie]

I think teams can still have some courage with the non-conference slate if the emphasis is to win the conference to get an automatic bid. If you're a team in the mix for an at-large, a strong out of conference win will probably be what puts you in over teams with soft schedules. You'd obviously not want to be embarrassed in those tougher games but if you can pull out a tough road game against a major non-conference opponent, it's a check in your favor and it'll pay off in getting you in as an at-large.

Let's say if you're Ohio State and you win that game at USC but you don't win the Big Ten...Illinois wins the conference and the Buckeyes finish second and have a 10-2 record with two road losses in conference. USC goes on and wins the Pac-10 and that loss to Ohio State is the only blemish on their record. That loss to Ohio State won't knock the Trojans out of the "playoff" since they'd get in because they won their conference outright and it ends up helping the Buckeyes get in as an at-large bid since they have a quality non-conference win as well as a second place finish in their conference.

If you're a non-BCS conference team like Hawaii, BYU, Utah, et al...you're going to need at least one or two strong out of conference wins because them winning their conference won't guarantee them a spot in the playoff. They'd have to pretty much have clean slate throughout their season and have a quality non-conference resume. The question is, will major conference opposition schedule these tougher mid-major teams?

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

I'm not a fan of the conference champ idea anyway, especially because only in the Pac 10 and Big East does every team play each other. If we're talking an 8 team playoff, let's get the best 8 teams in there. And for that, I'm in favor of using a poll. A BCS-type poll would be fine.

[Shoalzie]

In the larger conferences with two divisions, the conference championship game would actually serve a greater purpose if it meant winning the game and getting into a playoff...sort of like the conference tournaments in basketball. In the case of those smaller conferences, you'd just take the outright winner with the best record. The Big Ten is the only anomoly of the BCS conferences because they play only 8 of the 10 possible opponents each year and they have no actual championship game. Is the conference champ the true champ because they don't play everyone? How else would you determine a champ other than perhaps adding a 12th team and splitting into two divisions like the Big XII, SEC and ACC and having a championship game.